WBB news - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB news (/thread-26136.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB news (/thread-26136.html)
RE: WBB news - jonnyss - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 12:45 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(04-14-2026, 11:23 AM)stopandpop Wrote: Lastly, I'm watching players leaving Stanford for the portal (and for a few, new homes) from a distance. I know no details. But what I do know is, your athletic department has done all the wrong things with respect to an obvious crisis in the WBB program. I spent much of my career observing and (later) helping small and large organizations of all types successfully manage change. For some, high turnover; for others, a leadership issue; for others, a systemic or even a cultural problem. But in all these cases, I noticed 4 critical things needed to happen: 1) a sense of urgency; 2) transparency; 3) a feeling of potency- that we could manage this change effectively. And lastly- a consensus of reward at the end; that if we make this change now, we will come out of it successful and reap the benefits of change.
It seems to me that Stanford leadership has failed to do any of these four. It's a textbook example of how not to run a program.
I hope for the best!
Not what you expect from a guy who has been a management consultant, president and CEO of Bain, and the CEO of Nike, is it? Just based on his background, you would think he would have the perfect profile to address this kind of management challenge.
anybody ask if he was successful at nike?
"his exit from a rocky tenure offers a brutal reminder to corporate boards: focus on what a company's core business is when looking for a ceo."
and from google ai: his departure was spurred by a failed direct-to-consumer strategy, lack of product innovation, strained retail partnerships, and immense pressure from investors and employees over poor leadership...the company suffered its worst-ever stock decline in june 2024, shedding 24 billion in market cap.
RE: WBB news - petersalas - 04-14-2026
Courtney to Michigan
https://x.com/mom2cp_ogden/status/2044221035482911194?s=46&t=4RIjvxZZM4wjQaSyTEUwgA
RE: WBB news - martyup - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 03:46 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Top talent in the WBB coaching market that fits the Stanford environment is not easily obtainable or even identifiable sometimes. Also, rocking the boat by replacing TVD's hand-picked successor might upset big donors who may still be in the KP + TVD camps. There's a lot that goes into that kind of decision.
In what universe would "big donors" want this program to continue under KP's leadership? I would think they would have been the first to call for a change.
RE: WBB news - 2006alum - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 06:13 PM)petersalas Wrote: Courtney to Michigan
https://x.com/mom2cp_ogden/status/2044221035482911194?s=46&t=4RIjvxZZM4wjQaSyTEUwgA
Really losing faith in the AD here. They need to resolve this one way or the other, quickly, and publicly.
But congrats to her - great school, and great program on the rise. One of which can be said about us...
(04-14-2026, 06:13 PM)martyup Wrote:Indeed. I'm not a "big donor," but I feel like I'm exactly the fan they should be cultivating: multi-seat season ticket holder, two-time Tara master class student, alumni, very involved with alumni activities. brobdingnagian fan of Tara. Very hopeful KP would be our next generation coach.(04-14-2026, 03:46 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Top talent in the WBB coaching market that fits the Stanford environment is not easily obtainable or even identifiable sometimes. Also, rocking the boat by replacing TVD's hand-picked successor might upset big donors who may still be in the KP + TVD camps. There's a lot that goes into that kind of decision.
In what universe would "big donors" want this program to continue under KP's leadership? I would think they would have been the first to call for a change.
And until the last month, I was very supportive of the program. And I cannot even begin to articulate how totally disappointed I have become. Without a change in the leadership, I just don't see how I can continue to be invested in the program.
RE: WBB news - 82lsju - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 12:45 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Not what you expect from a guy who has been a management consultant, president and CEO of Bain, and the CEO of Nike, is it? Just based on his background, you would think he would have the perfect profile to address this kind of management challenge.
his time did not end well at Nike
https://fortune.com/2024/09/20/former-nike-ceo-john-donahoe-leadership-lessons-choosing-ceo/
and as to his time at Bain (and yes I'm somewhat cynical of management consultants), in his current job he can't really figure out the answer his client wants and parrot that back....
RE: WBB news - BostonCard - 04-14-2026
stopandpop dateline='[url=tel:1776191020' Wrote: 1776191020[/url]']
Lastly, I'm watching players leaving Stanford for the portal (and for a few, new homes) from a distance. I know no details. But what I do know is, your athletic department has done all the wrong things with respect to an obvious crisis in the WBB program. I spent much of my career observing and (later) helping small and large organizations of all types successfully manage change. For some, high turnover; for others, a leadership issue; for others, a systemic or even a cultural problem. But in all these cases, I noticed 4 critical things needed to happen: 1) a sense of urgency; 2) transparency; 3) a feeling of potency- that we could manage this change effectively. And lastly- a consensus of reward at the end; that if we make this change now, we will come out of it successful and reap the benefits of change.
It seems to me that Stanford leadership has failed to do any of these four. It's a textbook example of how not to run a program.
I hope for the best!
Surely you understand that the first step here is to be able to articulate a clear vision of the future state that you are trying to change to. Otherwise, your recipe is basically the Politician’s syllogism (“we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this”). Stanford is a university and not a traditional business, and the President of the University is more like a cat herder than he is a CEO.
I legitimately don’t think the University knows what it wants from its athletics department (and again, different power centers within the University have different priorities). As I keep reminding people, the University had to lay off almost 400 people in order to cut its budget by $140 million last year. Stanford athletics had a $21 million deficit even before the move to the ACC, partial TV revenue, increased budget for travel, never mind the forthcoming outlays under the House settlement (~$20 million). So far, we haven’t seen any major movements to change the AD because there are two ways this can go:
Option 1: Go whole hog into doing “whatever it takes” to support athletics. Mount a major campaign for donors to shore up the endowment with funds earmarked for the AD and ongoing support for NIL to play with the “big boys”. My estimate is that all told, it will probably take about $50 million a year or a cool billion dollar endowment that can pay that out in perpetuity. That would enable Stanford to keep its 36 varsity teams, pay out the full $20 million House settlement amount and funnel enough money through NIL to be competitive in the “major” sports (football, M&W basketball) and attract/retain title winning talent in the non-revenue sports (ie, match offers for athletes like Nijaree Canady, and the wrestlers who are grad transferring this year). Great if you can line up the money, but despite a large number of very wealthy alums out there the Venn diagram of “can afford to write 8 figure checks” and “cares more about Stanford athletics than other things, including having names on buildings at Stanford” may be a null set. It also probably requires more academic compromises than I think the academic senate would be comfortable with (though I’ve been surprised with what they’ve acceded to so far)
Option 2 (the option that I think we will eventually head towards): A major retrenchment from athletics for Stanford. We can’t afford to support 36 sports so we start cutting them (our much maligned former AD might have been ahead of his time). we can’t afford to buy ourselves a world class football team, and at the next conference realignment we find ourselves without a chair when the ACC falls apart because we have over a decade of futility in revenue sports and dwindling attendance. Maybe we even get ahead of the curve and decide to move to a minor conference before the next realignment. But this ends with Stanford having anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 as many sports as we do now, competing in a WCC or back in the PAC-12 or even *gasp* a move away from D1. Athletics may just mean less at Stanford in the future than it does now.
And then there is option 3, muddle through and hope that the pendulum swings back to a situation that is more favorable to Stanford athletics (I don’t think the genie can be put back in, but who knows). Or maybe things are changing so quickly that even if we adapt to the new reality, things will change in a different direction, so rushing to adapt to the current state runs the risk of running afoul of Gretzky’s maxim ("Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been"). Of course, if you have no idea where the puck is going, it might actually make sense to stop and try and figure that out first.
BC
RE: WBB news - Card10Fan - 04-14-2026
I’m a donor not a big donor. I did make known in my email to AD and Levin why a WBB leadership change is necessary and did say I planned to withhold my donations and decline season tix until there’s a clear resolution and path forward.
I don’t buy that Ogden committing means Paye is staying. Players in the portal need to decide soon. Stanford process is taking too long. It can still be the right outcome it’s just moving at Stanford speed.
RE: WBB news - 82lsju - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 07:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Option 2 (the option that I think we will eventually head towards): A major retrenchment from athletics for Stanford. We can’t afford to support 36 sports so we start cutting them (our much maligned former AD might have been ahead of his time). we can’t afford to buy ourselves a world class football team, and at the next conference realignment we find ourselves without a chair when the ACC falls apart because we have over a decade of futility in revenue sports and dwindling attendance. Maybe we even get ahead of the curve and decide to move to a minor conference before the next realignment. But this ends with Stanford having anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 as many sports as we do now, competing in a WCC or back in the PAC-12 or even *gasp* a move away from D1. Athletics may just mean less at Stanford in the future than it does now.
one of our last great hopes is that the "super leagues of college football" need enough pacific and mountain time zone teams to fill all their TV slots and not abandon mountain and western state viewers, that could be what gets us "a chair" in the next big reshuffle (which is coming in I think +/-5 years), the Big Ten has their "west coast division" the SEC has no one west of Texas (a fellow can dream)
RE: WBB news - stopandpop - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 07:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote:stopandpop dateline='[url=tel:1776191020' Wrote: 1776191020[/url]']
Lastly, I'm watching players leaving Stanford for the portal (and for a few, new homes) from a distance. I know no details. But what I do know is, your athletic department has done all the wrong things with respect to an obvious crisis in the WBB program. I spent much of my career observing and (later) helping small and large organizations of all types successfully manage change. For some, high turnover; for others, a leadership issue; for others, a systemic or even a cultural problem. But in all these cases, I noticed 4 critical things needed to happen: 1) a sense of urgency; 2) transparency; 3) a feeling of potency- that we could manage this change effectively. And lastly- a consensus of reward at the end; that if we make this change now, we will come out of it successful and reap the benefits of change.
It seems to me that Stanford leadership has failed to do any of these four. It's a textbook example of how not to run a program.
I hope for the best!
Surely you understand that the first step here is to be able to articulate a clear vision of the future state that you are trying to change to. Otherwise, your recipe is basically the Politician’s syllogism (“we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this”). Stanford is a university and not a traditional business, and the President of the University is more like a cat herder than he is a CEO.
I legitimately don’t think the University knows what it wants from its athletics department (and again, different power centers within the University have different priorities). As I keep reminding people, the University had to lay off almost 400 people in order to cut its budget by $140 million last year. Stanford athletics had a $21 million deficit even before the move to the ACC, partial TV revenue, increased budget for travel, never mind the forthcoming outlays under the House settlement (~$20 million). So far, we haven’t seen any major movements to change the AD because there are two ways this can go:
Option 1: Go whole hog into doing “whatever it takes” to support athletics. Mount a major campaign for donors to shore up the endowment with funds earmarked for the AD and ongoing support for NIL to play with the “big boys”. My estimate is that all told, it will probably take about $50 million a year or a cool billion dollar endowment that can pay that out in perpetuity. That would enable Stanford to keep its 36 varsity teams, pay out the full $20 million House settlement amount and funnel enough money through NIL to be competitive in the “major” sports (football, M&W basketball) and attract/retain title winning talent in the non-revenue sports (ie, match offers for athletes like Nijaree Canady, and the wrestlers who are grad transferring this year). Great if you can line up the money, but despite a large number of very wealthy alums out there the Venn diagram of “can afford to write 8 figure checks” and “cares more about Stanford athletics than other things, including having names on buildings at Stanford” may be a null set. It also probably requires more academic compromises than I think the academic senate would be comfortable with (though I’ve been surprised with what they’ve acceded to so far)
Option 2 (the option that I think we will eventually head towards): A major retrenchment from athletics for Stanford. We can’t afford to support 36 sports so we start cutting them (our much maligned former AD might have been ahead of his time). we can’t afford to buy ourselves a world class football team, and at the next conference realignment we find ourselves without a chair when the ACC falls apart because we have over a decade of futility in revenue sports and dwindling attendance. Maybe we even get ahead of the curve and decide to move to a minor conference before the next realignment. But this ends with Stanford having anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 as many sports as we do now, competing in a WCC or back in the PAC-12 or even *gasp* a move away from D1. Athletics may just mean less at Stanford in the future than it does now.
And then there is option 3, muddle through and hope that the pendulum swings back to a situation that is more favorable to Stanford athletics (I don’t think the genie can be put back in, but who knows). Or maybe things are changing so quickly that even if we adapt to the new reality, things will change in a different direction, so rushing to adapt to the current state runs the risk of running afoul of Gretzky’s maxim ("Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been"). Of course, if you have no idea where the puck is going, it might actually make sense to stop and try and figure that out first.
BC
I have worked with organizations that articulated great vision and mission statements, but they were failing because (in many cases) something in their structure, or culture, leadership - resulting in poor performance, was not aligned to their vision/mission. I work in the real world and I know a thing or two about vision statements. I just helped a global non-profit rewrite their vision because their vision was too out of reach compared to their work and impact. Yes, visions are the head of the "spear", but developing one now, is not what Stanford Athletics should be engaged in at this point. Kate Paye had a mission statement at the beginning her tenure: "Compete for national championships" (what a great aspiration), and we saw where that went. This is all about responding to major problems within the program- horrible performance and players leaving. That must be addressed now.
RE: WBB news - SearchingForTheTruth - 04-14-2026
I agree 100%. Thanks for saying it so well.
(04-14-2026, 10:02 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Kate Paye and some on her staff are also fellow Stanford alumna and ought to be given a measure of respect befitting those with whom you might end up rubbing elbows with at some future Stanford function. While the WBB team has fallen on hard times, and while KP might not have the answers...she's still one of us. I don't mean to exclude the non-Stanford alumni who grace us with their support, but it has never escaped my mind that KP is living out my dream of one day coaching my alma mater in my sport, even if the results have been rough.
Here's a list of the top ten programs with the most number of outgoing transfers, in case you think Stanford has it the worst:
1. Pittsburgh (13)
2. Penn State (10)
3. Arkansas (9)
4. Florida (9)
5. Georgia (9)
6. Oklahoma State (9)
7. Alabama (8)
8. Miami (8)
9. Tennessee (8)
10. UCF (8)
Many of those coaches have already been fired. It's a seller's market out there for coaching talent, and if you want to change coaches, you'd better be darn well sure that you're getting someone with positive wins above replacement.
RE: WBB news - martyup - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 08:14 PM)SearchingForTheTruth Wrote: I agree 100%. Thanks for saying it so well.
So, you advocate for keeping KP?
RE: WBB news - chrisk - 04-14-2026
Luck's stated plan is to focus on improving the results of high school recruiting, and then develop and retain those players. At Stanford, NIL is more effective at retaining home-grown stars rather than spending wildly on transfers.
The WBB programs needs to make the program in which the top players are supported emotionally and financially.
It will be cheaper to retain players and using the transfer portal selectively.
RE: WBB news - SearchingForTheTruth - 04-14-2026
I saw your original question and I haven’t been avoiding the question, I have been trying to articulate it correctly. Still working on it.
(04-14-2026, 08:59 PM)martyup Wrote:(04-14-2026, 08:14 PM)SearchingForTheTruth Wrote: I agree 100%. Thanks for saying it so well.
So, you advocate for keeping KP?
SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 04-14-2026
(04-14-2026, 09:21 PM)chrisk Wrote: Luck's stated plan is to focus on improving the results of high school recruiting, and then develop and retain those players. At Stanford, NIL is more effective at retaining home-grown stars rather than spending wildly on transfers.
The WBB programs needs to make the program in which the top players are supported emotionally and financially.
It will be cheaper to retain players and using the transfer portal selectively.
Agree this is our best way forward
RE: WBB news - 81alum - 04-15-2026
I would really like to know, in more detail, what it is that drove our players away. From many years of watching Kate in chalk talks it was always clear that she was not exactly a "people-person." In fact she snapped at me once when I asked what I thought was an innocent question. But she has good qualities too. Extremely bright, hard working, very competitive, and she understood the Stanford experience better than anyone else could. And there was this--as bad as Kate was with people, she did get better, and she was always more outgoing than Tara ever was. So I had high hopes for her. The last few years of chalk talks showed her developing a better PR skill set, for example.
So what on earth went wrong? If we want to understand how to fix what is broken, we need to know how it broke. Was there genuine abuse of some sort? Was she just overly demanding and harsh for today's generation of players? Did she lose their basketball respect? Was it disagreements about player utilization? Or did our players just decide that being on a more competitive team was more important than the Stanford connection?
All that said, I do think the underlying structural problems are probably insurmountable if our standard is to compete as we did in the prior era. But clearly there is more going on than that. It would help to know what specifically made the players decide as they did if we are trying to figure out a better coaching fit for our program.
EDIT: and if you want a great "people person" to lead the program, it is absolutely obvious to the chalk talk fans who that would be: Tempie. Also a good recruiter. I don't know if our players liked her and if she was part of the problem, though. Nor does she have the resume that many on this board would expect to see. But she is not exactly a Tara protege the way Kate or Katy or Erica or Jeanette--all former players--were. She and Heather are the most "outside" on the staff, and she is by far and away the best communicator.
RE: WBB news - BobK - 04-15-2026
As others have said all info is available on the rivals on3 site with two different people. One the mod and one who has spoken To a couple of players and parents.
I was on the Fast Break Club committee meeting with Tara and coaches periodically. I went to many Banquets and post game “tents”. I always found Tara outgoing and personable. Including a couple one on one’s.
A player going to HR sums it up for me that and players Wanting out before graduation
RE: WBB news - 81alum - 04-15-2026
(04-15-2026, 07:46 AM)BobK Wrote: As others have said all info is available on the rivals on3 site with two different people. One the mod and one who has spoken To a couple of players and parents.Thanks Bob, two of my best Cardboard friends--you and Chimera--have said the same thing. But isn't it odd that information so vital to the future of the program would be locked behind a paywall? One would think that problems so serious that they drove almost the whole team away would be so obvious and "out there" that we could have a meaningful debate about the facts.
I was on the Fast Break Club committee meeting with Tara and coaches periodically. I went to many Banquets and post game “tents”. I always found Tara outgoing and personable. Including a couple one on one’s.
A player going to HR sums it up for me that and players Wanting out before graduation
RE: WBB news - BobK - 04-15-2026
Like newspapers one needs to subscribe to read Rivals ON3 has a paid moderator this we pay the $10 a month For this we get more info Sharing info from that site wouldn’t be right morally
That said 81 thank you for your kind words
RE: WBB news - chimera - 04-15-2026
Thx, 81alum. Always enjoyed chatting with you at games. The pay site is kinda of like a newspaper or magazine. You pay a few dollars a month to access their content. They have a dedicated mod/reporter whose sole job is to create content - interviews, stories, etc. about Stanford and also to develop sources to ferret out info about these sort of things. He gets paid to do that full time as part of the On3 network of college sites. If they opened it up free, there would be nobody to create the content. He does have sources inside the athletic department and does talk to players and parents (various sports) so he can get scoops we cannot. There are others on there who have their own sources as well.
RE: WBB news - crackpot - 04-15-2026
(04-15-2026, 07:32 AM)81alum Wrote: I would really like to know, in more detail, what it is that drove our players away. From many years of watching Kate in chalk talks it was always clear that she was not exactly a "people-person." In fact she snapped at me once when I asked what I thought was an innocent question. But she has good qualities too. Extremely bright, hard working, very competitive, and she understood the Stanford experience better than anyone else could. And there was this--as bad as Kate was with people, she did get better, and she was always more outgoing than Tara ever was. So I had high hopes for her. The last few years of chalk talks showed her developing a better PR skill set, for example.
So what on earth went wrong? If we want to understand how to fix what is broken, we need to know how it broke. Was there genuine abuse of some sort? Was she just overly demanding and harsh for today's generation of players? Did she lose their basketball respect? Was it disagreements about player utilization? Or did our players just decide that being on a more competitive team was more important than the Stanford connection?
All that said, I do think the underlying structural problems are probably insurmountable if our standard is to compete as we did in the prior era. But clearly there is more going on than that. It would help to know what specifically made the players decide as they did if we are trying to figure out a better coaching fit for our program.
EDIT: and if you want a great "people person" to lead the program, it is absolutely obvious to the chalk talk fans who that would be: Tempie. Also a good recruiter. I don't know if our players liked her and if she was part of the problem, though. Nor does she have the resume that many on this board would expect to see. But she is not exactly a Tara protege the way Kate or Katy or Erica or Jeanette--all former players--were. She and Heather are the most "outside" on the staff, and she is by far and away the best communicator.
I still shudder thinking about those KP-led chalk talks.
After watching Tara coach for nearly four decades, it was obvious that Tara, while naturally shy, does love people. I never got the same feeling from KP ever--it always seemed forced. Even when greeting the donors pre-game, it looks like she's trying to "gear up" to do so. I appreciate that she has tried and hoped/wished that my take on her personality was wrong. I'm heartbroken to learn that what my gut was telling me is likely true.
Tara, while the GOAT, learned from her mistakes. She was not too humble to ask for outside help when necessary (e.g., repairing the culture of the team after the 22-23 season, or learning the Princeton Offense when the personnel coming in would likely work best using it). And Tara could, undoubtedly, be tough as nails when it came to coaching, but players always knew she cared for them. And different players need different approaches. E.g., she could yell at Wiggins her freshman year, but she knew she couldn't do that with most freshman.
All that time sitting on the bench next to her after pulling the rug out from under U$C in 2017, you'd think KP would see the train that was coming in NIL, portal, etc., and start planning for that. Or at least ask for help in planning for that. Heck, Cori Close perfected it in the same time, and she had all of the HC duties, too. Maybe she was too busy working on her canned press conference spiel?
I also keep thinking about that Maya Angelou quote: "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
From the stands, it looked like this year's team was as close as any I have seen. I had hoped (and even sometimes assumed) that is because they were facing challenges we knew nothing about. I guess they did, but it saddens me to hear that it was the HC.